Author
Topic: thank you, Dear Abby! (Read 67841 times)

I do have to admit, I've never had someone's charming personality catch my eye across a crowded room. I've met good looking guys who ended up not being a romantic prospect, and I've met not so good looking guys who ended up being way better of an option. In the end though, I was always attracted by something physical from the beginning.

This guy does sound a bit..... extreme on the demandingness. But hey, at least he didn't specify that the ladies had to be 23-28 and Harvard educated as well!

I had to smile, what caught my eye with my current husband was his laugh. I heard it and followed it to him. His charming personality did catch me. He smiled, danced and was very charming. Was he the cutest guy in the room, nope. But he got me on his smile and laugh.

Of course it is not the "most important" thing in a relationship. It is, however, something that must be there for me for there to be any relationship at all.

So if your attraction to your SO were to dissappear, your relationship would be over?

I have never experienced this. Then again, I have always dated people for whom being their best self (in all senses of the word) is important. On purpose I have done that, because I am like that myself.

But again, I would not have a relationship start at all if there were no attraction physically.

OK, I think where we're misunderstanding you is that you mean "first as in chronologically" but it sometimes sounds like "first as in most important." It's certainly not an invalid place to start when casting around for a partner.

I do have to admit, I've never had someone's charming personality catch my eye across a crowded room. I've met good looking guys who ended up not being a romantic prospect, and I've met not so good looking guys who ended up being way better of an option. In the end though, I was always attracted by something physical from the beginning.

This guy does sound a bit..... extreme on the demandingness. But hey, at least he didn't specify that the ladies had to be 23-28 and Harvard educated as well!

I had to smile, what caught my eye with my current husband was his laugh. I heard it and followed it to him. His charming personality did catch me. He smiled, danced and was very charming. Was he the cutest guy in the room, nope. But he got me on his smile and laugh.

I'm partially deaf so I can't hear laughter from across a room. Might have been able to see the nice smile, but I wouldn't have heard a darn thing!

Logged

My inner (r-word) is having a field day with this one.-Love is Evol: Christopher Titus-

I do have to admit, I've never had someone's charming personality catch my eye across a crowded room. I've met good looking guys who ended up not being a romantic prospect, and I've met not so good looking guys who ended up being way better of an option. In the end though, I was always attracted by something physical from the beginning.

This guy does sound a bit..... extreme on the demandingness. But hey, at least he didn't specify that the ladies had to be 23-28 and Harvard educated as well!

I had to smile, what caught my eye with my current husband was his laugh. I heard it and followed it to him. His charming personality did catch me. He smiled, danced and was very charming. Was he the cutest guy in the room, nope. But he got me on his smile and laugh.

I've told this story before on here, but when I first met my BF (some four years before we ever dated) nothing clicked. He was ill and stressed at the time and not at his best, and I was partnered and not looking anyway. Years later, after colliding at numerous events over time, I was talking to him one night at a shindig and he lit up with something he was going on about, and suddenly he was gorgeous. And he still is. I can stand back with my "commercial culture" glasses on and see that neither he nor I is classically beautiful, but it works.

I have never experienced this. Then again, I have always dated people for whom being their best self (in all senses of the word) is important. On purpose I have done that, because I am like that myself.

You've talked a lot over the years on ehell about one's "best self" as in fitness. Leaving aside that particular part of physical appearance (because I know we have some profound disagreement on the topic), do you also feel people are not their "best self" if they grow old (as in gray hair and lines) or if they are scarred in an accident or something of the sort? All of these things can affect whether someone is conventionally attractive without being a knock on their desire to be their best self, IMO. And if I had made a commitment to someone, they would not be grounds to break it.

I recall my High School Home Ec teacher. She was missing half of two fingers on her left hand from a childhood ranch accident. A very interesting story, she started every quarter by telling it to the new kids and warning them about using tools correctly. She told lots of stories; there are long minutes when food is in the oven and we'd all swap tales.

Once she told the story about a man she dated in college. Things were getting serious, and a mutual friend asked him where he planned to put the ring; on her stubby left ring finger, or her perfect right ring finger. The beau had not noticed up to this point that her two fingers on her left hand had been partially amputated and asked about it. Then he started making excuses until they drifted apart. She was mad because he didn't break it off officially, and she thought it a stupid reason to break up, as he had never even noticed the handicap on his own. Plus, it wasn't a deformity that could be passed on to offspring, which she would have understood too (being raised a rancher girl). A few years later, she heard through the grapevine that he'd lost a thumb in a roping incident. She didn't contact him in any way but joked that she thought about asking, if they ever meet again, if the lost thumb ended up being a dealbreaker for his wife.

Logged

“A real desire to believe all the good you can of others and to make others as comfortable as you can will solve most of the problems.” CS Lewis

I do have to admit, I've never had someone's charming personality catch my eye across a crowded room. I've met good looking guys who ended up not being a romantic prospect, and I've met not so good looking guys who ended up being way better of an option. In the end though, I was always attracted by something physical from the beginning.

This guy does sound a bit..... extreme on the demandingness. But hey, at least he didn't specify that the ladies had to be 23-28 and Harvard educated as well!

I had to smile, what caught my eye with my current husband was his laugh. I heard it and followed it to him. His charming personality did catch me. He smiled, danced and was very charming. Was he the cutest guy in the room, nope. But he got me on his smile and laugh.

I'm partially deaf so I can't hear laughter from across a room. Might have been able to see the nice smile, but I wouldn't have heard a darn thing!

I wear two aids and I heard it! But it was in a quiet setting and not at a noisy party. That helped.

Of course it is not the "most important" thing in a relationship. It is, however, something that must be there for me for there to be any relationship at all.

So if your attraction to your SO were to disappear, your relationship would be over?

I have never experienced this. Then again, I have always dated people for whom being their best self (in all senses of the word) is important. On purpose I have done that, because I am like that myself.

But again, I would not have a relationship start at all if there were no attraction physically.

Our "best selves" can be in disfiguring accidents, or be stricken with cancer, or any other number of things. I firmly believe my relationship with my SO would continue to be strong despite it.

I do have to admit, I've never had someone's charming personality catch my eye across a crowded room. I've met good looking guys who ended up not being a romantic prospect, and I've met not so good looking guys who ended up being way better of an option. In the end though, I was always attracted by something physical from the beginning.

This guy does sound a bit..... extreme on the demandingness. But hey, at least he didn't specify that the ladies had to be 23-28 and Harvard educated as well!

I had to smile, what caught my eye with my current husband was his laugh. I heard it and followed it to him. His charming personality did catch me. He smiled, danced and was very charming. Was he the cutest guy in the room, nope. But he got me on his smile and laugh.

I'm partially deaf so I can't hear laughter from across a room. Might have been able to see the nice smile, but I wouldn't have heard a darn thing!

I wear two aids and I heard it! But it was in a quiet setting and not at a noisy party. That helped.

They have those?

Logged

My inner (r-word) is having a field day with this one.-Love is Evol: Christopher Titus-

Of course it is not the "most important" thing in a relationship. It is, however, something that must be there for me for there to be any relationship at all.

So if your attraction to your SO were to disappear, your relationship would be over?

I have never experienced this. Then again, I have always dated people for whom being their best self (in all senses of the word) is important. On purpose I have done that, because I am like that myself.

But again, I would not have a relationship start at all if there were no attraction physically.

Our "best selves" can be in disfiguring accidents, or be stricken with cancer, or any other number of things. I firmly believe my relationship with my SO would continue to be strong despite it.

And one's best self is not just their body, either. I value a person who is curious, keeps their mind active and open, and strives to keep making the relationship better.

Of course it is not the "most important" thing in a relationship. It is, however, something that must be there for me for there to be any relationship at all.

So if your attraction to your SO were to dissappear, your relationship would be over?

I have never experienced this. Then again, I have always dated people for whom being their best self (in all senses of the word) is important. On purpose I have done that, because I am like that myself.

Not everyone includes fitness/attractiveness in their definition of their "best self." You're not wrong for valuing those things, but I'm not wrong either if I don't value them. My "best self" might be 25 pounds overweight according to the medical establishment, but that's the "best" weight for me when I balance my physical and mental health. My "best self" might be someone who doesn't worry about makeup or grooming or fashion because I am happier that way. My "best self" might prefer reading to jogging. It would be really arrogant of me to think that my definition of "best (in all senses of the word)" is objective or universal.

Of course you should look for romantic partners whose values match your own. And I don't think it's shallow to only date people you find physically attractive. It's shallow in general to judge people based on their looks, but dating is all about personal preference.

Logged

How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these. -George Washington Carver

Of course it is not the "most important" thing in a relationship. It is, however, something that must be there for me for there to be any relationship at all.

So if your attraction to your SO were to disappear, your relationship would be over?

I have never experienced this. Then again, I have always dated people for whom being their best self (in all senses of the word) is important. On purpose I have done that, because I am like that myself.

But again, I would not have a relationship start at all if there were no attraction physically.

Our "best selves" can be in disfiguring accidents, or be stricken with cancer, or any other number of things. I firmly believe my relationship with my SO would continue to be strong despite it.

I know somebody who was a volunteer fire fighter, played basket ball, etc. He became paralyzed overnight due to an illness and for over half a year couldn't so much as move a toe. He is still working on recovering.

You've talked a lot over the years on ehell about one's "best self" as in fitness. Leaving aside that particular part of physical appearance (because I know we have some profound disagreement on the topic), do you also feel people are not their "best self" if they grow old (as in gray hair and lines) or if they are scarred in an accident or something of the sort? All of these things can affect whether someone is conventionally attractive without being a knock on their desire to be their best self, IMO. And if I had made a commitment to someone, they would not be grounds to break it.

I can't tell if you are being serious or deliberately not "getting" what I am saying. Of course not. Age, illness, accident...these things have nothing to do with being one's best self. What people do with the hand they have been given does. By best self, I am saying I hope for each person to be his or her best self, which would mean he or she is truly happy with being himself or herself. Not just physically, but mentally, spiritually, as a spouse, child, parent, employee, etc. I can't decide for anyone else whether they are their best self - I can surmise a person is NOT his or her best self when they complain about some aspect of themselves.

In terms of fitness, my point is that there are different body types out there. I am my "best self" in terms of fitness meaning I am happy with how my body looks and what it can do. Giselle's best self is different from mine, as is Oprahs.

You've talked a lot over the years on ehell about one's "best self" as in fitness. Leaving aside that particular part of physical appearance (because I know we have some profound disagreement on the topic), do you also feel people are not their "best self" if they grow old (as in gray hair and lines) or if they are scarred in an accident or something of the sort? All of these things can affect whether someone is conventionally attractive without being a knock on their desire to be their best self, IMO. And if I had made a commitment to someone, they would not be grounds to break it.

I can't tell if you are being serious or deliberately not "getting" what I am saying. Of course not. Age, illness, accident...these things have nothing to do with being one's best self. What people do with the hand they have been given does. By best self, I am saying I hope for each person to be his or her best self, which would mean he or she is truly happy with being himself or herself. Not just physically, but mentally, spiritually, as a spouse, child, parent, employee, etc. I can't decide for anyone else whether they are their best self - I can surmise a person is NOT his or her best self when they complain about some aspect of themselves.

In terms of fitness, my point is that there are different body types out there. I am my "best self" in terms of fitness meaning I am happy with how my body looks and what it can do. Giselle's best self is different from mine, as is Oprahs.

No, I was being serious. Thank you for the clarification.

(ETA: and for the record, I don't think the topic of "complaining about an aspect of oneself" even came up in the thread. The guy isn't complaining that women complain to him about their looks!)